The Supreme Court

Image
Logo, Supreme Court, PBS
Annotation

The Supreme Court is a companion website to a 2008 Parents' Choice gold-award-winning PBS series on the same topic. Under About the Series, episodes can be previewed online, or you can read full transcripts. Another option is to download the discussion guide, intended for use in 9th- through 12th-grade classrooms.

For Educators includes lesson plans, interactives and games, a link to the aforementioned discussion guide, and a list of external resources. Interactives include a timeline, which requires you to put 10 landmark Supreme Court cases in order; a game of memory which requires matching historical figures to facts (ex: Oliver Wendell Holmes to being known as "the Great Dissenter"); and a quiz where you match daily activities such as listening to music or saying the Pledge to relevant case names. The four available lesson plans cover federal v. state power, the 14th Amendment, civil liberties, and the legal importance of precedent.

Note the links to games and a timeline at the top of the home page will take you to a different timeline and set of games. This timeline shows you major Supreme Court and historical events which took place in the year of your choosing. The games include six additional interactives—an explanation of design and architectural decisions as they relate to the Supreme Court; how various types of texts have served as inspiration in Supreme Court decisions; an opportunity to decide which way you think majority rule fell in four cases; matching justices, cases, or issues to quotes; examples of reversal of precedent; and an opportunity to register and predict the outcome of current cases.

Other features available on the website include pages on Supreme Court history (in the top menu of the home page) and additional interviews with Sandra Day O'Connor and John Roberts (in a menu near the bottom of the home page).

Federal Hall National Memorial [NY]

Description

Federal Hall National Memorial is the site where George Washington took the oath of office as the first U.S. President, as well as the site of the first Congress, Supreme Court, and Executive Branch offices. The current structure, an 1842 Greek Revival Customs House, later served as part of the U.S. Sub-Treasury. Now, the building serves as a museum and memorial to the first President and the beginnings of the United States of America. The memorial presents information on the first Presidential Inauguration, with the first inaugural Bible serving as a collection highlight.

The memorial offers self-guided tours; guided tours and talks on a wide variety of subjects; a walking lecture of the 1776 Battle for New York, intended for high school seniors at the youngest; guided tours of lower Manhattan; exhibits; and curriculum–based programs.

Faces at the Bottom of the Well: Nightmare of Reality vs. Dr. King's Dream

Description

NAACP Chairman of the Board Julian Bond talks about the views of Martin Luther King, Jr., and his emphasis on improving conditions for the working class as a whole. Bond criticizes current abuses and denials of civil rights and quality-of-life issues, and considers the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court cases on affirmative action.

John Marshall House [VA]

Description

John Marshall built his home in Richmond in 1790, 11 years prior to becoming the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal-style brick house is one of the last remaining structures of the neighborhood that existed in what is now downtown Richmond. Inside the house is the largest collection of Marshall family furnishings and memorabilia in America.

The house offers exhibits, tours, and occasional recreational and educational events.

Supreme Court Nominations jbuescher Tue, 07/28/2009 - 16:26
field_image
Harper's Weekly: Justice peeking from her blindfold
Question

How often has the Senate rejected a president’s nominee to the Supreme Court? What have been the most common reasons for rejection?

Answer

Of the 159 nominations for Supreme Court Justice that presidents have submitted to the Senate for confirmation, the Senate has rejected only 12. The first rejection was George Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice in 1795; the last, Ronald Reagan’s nominee for Associate Justice, Robert H. Bork, in 1987.

In addition to rejecting nominees, the Senate has failed to approve 24 additional nominees by postponing confirmation, taking no action, or by acting in ways that have encouraged nominees to withdraw from consideration, as with Harriet Miers in 2005.

Nearly 60 percent of rejections have occurred when the president and a majority of senators have been members of opposing political parties. Nearly half of the failed conferrals were nominated in a president’s final year in office. One-third of failed appointments were nominations by presidents who had not been elected to office.

“Senatorial courtesy,” whereby senators will vote against a nominee if the nomination is opposed by one of the nominee’s home state senators, when that senator is a member of the same party as the president, also has been a factor in some rejections.

Political Currents Have Ebbed and Flowed

Political science professor P. S. Ruckman, Jr., has argued that in “critical” instances in which a significant shift in the Court’s makeup has been predicted, nominees have been rejected nearly as many times as confirmed. When nominations have not been considered critical, confirmation has been 12 times more likely.

When nominations have not been considered critical, confirmation has been 12 times more likely.

Following an uneventful first 20 years of Senate confirmations, in which all but one of 19 nominees were approved quickly, the confirmation process went through a turbulent 80 years during which the Senate rejected more than one-fourth of nominees. Law Professor Richard D. Friedman concluded, “. . . the probability of a nomination’s rejection peaked in the years surrounding the Civil War, with a dip during the war itself. The probability of rejection then declined gradually, and by 1910 it was close to zero.”

During Reconstruction, Senate opposition to nominees became “politically reputable,” Friedman surmised, as Justices were understood to be politically motivated in their rulings, and Senators thus believed that they had the right and responsibility to vote to insure political reliability and geographical dispersal. (George Washington had established a long-lasting precedent of attempting to have a geographically balanced Supreme Court.)

Political compatibility with the Senate appears as the most important factor for confirmation today.

From 1894 to 1968, only one nominee was rejected (President Hoover’s nominee, North Carolina Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John J. Parker). Beginning in 1968, confirmation battles began again in earnest, as three nominees were rejected between 1968 and 1970. In 1987, Judge Bork was rejected in a politically charged atmosphere, heightened because the voting behavior of the resigning Justice (Lewis F. Powell), had determined a number of important 5-4 decisions.

A 2008 study argued that at present a nominee’s “ideological compatibility” with that of Senators “now takes precedence” over all other factors with regard to their confirmation.

Bibliography

U. S. Senate, “Supreme Court Nominations, Present-1789,” http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm.

P. S. Ruckman, Jr., “The Supreme Court, Critical Nominations, and the Senate Confirmation Process,” Journal of Politics 55 (August 1993): 793-805.

Richard D. Friedman, “The Transformation in Senate Response to Supreme Court Nominees: From Reconstruction to the Taft Administration and Beyond,” Cardozo Law Review 5 (1983): 1-95; Bernard Schwartz, A History of the Supreme Court (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 17.

John S. Goff, “The Rejection of United States Supreme Court Appointments,” American Journal of Legal History 5 (October 1961): 357-68.

Lee Epstein, René Lindstädt, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland, “The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees,” Journal of Politics 68 (May 2006): 296-307.

Charles M. Cameron, Albert D. Cover, and Jeffrey A. Segal, “Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model,” American Political Science Review 84 (1990): 525-34.

Lee Epstein, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland, “The Increasing Importance of Ideology in the Nomination and Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices,” Drake Law Review 56 (2008): 609-35.

Michael Comiskey, Seeking Justices: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2004).

Scales of Justice: A History of Supreme Court Nominations

Description

According to Backstory:

Just in time for the Kagan confirmation hearings, BackStory is delving into the long history of appointments to the Supreme Court. What qualities did presidents and lawmakers look for in Supreme Court justices 200 years ago, and how have those expectations changed? How much have nominees’ personalities and backgrounds mattered in the past? Was the confirmation process always as “politicized” as it seems today? Was it more so? How has media coverage affected the process? Join the History Guys as they explore the highlights – and lowlights – of Supreme Court nominations past.

iCivics aharmon Tue, 06/28/2011 - 17:01
Image
Screenshot, Cast Your Vote, iCivics
Annotation

iCivics teaches students civics by way of online casual gaming. Don't write the site off because it consists primarily of games. Most of them are actually both entertaining and educational.

Games are divided into sections—Citizen Participation, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Budgeting, Separation of Powers, the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch, with one to four games each. Games can also be sorted by overall time needed to play.

Try Cast Your Vote to learn to prioritize issues of importance to you and evaluate political candidates, Immigration Nation to learn reasons why people are and are not allowed into the country, Do I Have a Right? to review your amendments, Branches of Power to emphasize the relationships among the three branches of government, Executive Command to discover the responsibilities of the President, People's Pie to create a national budget, or Counties Work to manage county services. For an in-depth example, take a look at our Tech for Teachers entry on Do I Have a Right?.

Note that games include teacher's guides in the menu below the play area. Select Teachers' Tools, and look under Teacher's Files. Also under Teachers' Tools, you can search by your state name to find any standards directly related to the game in question.

Players can also earn points, and spend them on various causes such as Teens Against Domestic Abuse. The causes with the highest points each three months are awarded a monetary prize. This gives gaming point acquisition a real-life application.

In addition to games, the website offers curriculum units on budgeting, foundations of government, citizenship and participation, persuasive writing, and each of the three branches of government. These packages include lesson plans, appropriate iCivics games, and webquests. Webquests consist of thematic information linked to resources on external websites. You can also search for appropriate content by specific state standards, and/or register to create a class account.

Supreme Court Historical Society [DC]

Description

The Supreme Court Historical Society works in conjunction with the Supreme Court in order to chronicle the history of the court and provide a variety of educational events and resources. The society was founded in 1974 by Chief Justice Warren Burger, who served as the society's first chairman. Today, in addition to educational events, the society also works to publish books, journals, and electronic resources. The society also sponsors a series of traveling lectures by distinguished scholars on specific periods of the court's history.

The site offers information and purchasing information on all society publications, a detailed history of the court, an online gift shop, and online resources including sample lessons for teacher's and curriculum support.

The society does not offer a physical site for visitation. Above entry is pre-existing.

Divided Allegiance

field_image
Question

How can a person born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent (divided allegiance) be defined as a 'natural born citizen?'

Shouldn't a 'natural born citizen' be defined as being born with allegiance to the U.S. only?

Answer

Throughout the history of the United States, there has been a consistent evolution of who a citizen is and how a citizen is defined, as the United States Constitution has been both decided upon and modified on various occasions to expand the definition of who is a citizen and guarantee equal rights for all individuals. In the late 18th century, a citizen was defined as a white, male landowner, and African Americans could legally be held as slaves. The 1857 Dred Scott v Sandford Supreme Court case affirmed this definition. The Oyez Project (2005–2011) puts forth that in this case the Court found that "no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen." Six years subsequent to this decision, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared "that all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free."

The 14th Amendment guarantees that a person born in the United States is thereby a citizen, even if both parents are illegal immigrants.

This change was reflected in the Constitution of the United States in the 14th Amendment (1868), which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," as well as the 15th Amendment (1870), which puts forth that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." However, the next half century still saw roughly half of the country's population without full citizenship rights, as it was not until 1920 that the 19th Amendment was passed that granted women suffrage. To answer the particular question posed above, simply put, the 14th Amendment guarantees that a person born in the United States is thereby a citizen, even if both parents are illegal immigrants. However, this is not without controversy, and it has become a political issue, as citizens born to illegal immigrants have derisively been referred to as "anchor babies." For more on this issue, try searching the New York Times using the phrase "anchor babies." However, American children of foreign parents can be dual citizens depending in part on the rules of the other country. This status is conferred when "an individual is a citizen of two countries at the same time." The website newcitizen.us describes potential benefits to being a dual citizen; among them are "the privilege of voting in both countries, owning property in both countries, and having government health care in both countries." However, the U.S. Department of State puts forth that the U.S. government "does not encourage" dual citizenship "because of the problems it may cause," particularly that "claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad." To answer the initial question in regards to allegiance, allegiance may be more the way a person feels rather than actual law. On this topic the U.S. Department of State notes that "where a dual national is located [where the citizen resides] generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Bibliography

Newcitizen.us. "Dual citizenship." 2011 (accessed on April 8, 2011).

U.S. Supreme Court Media. "Dred Scott v. Sandford," 60 U.S. 393 (1857). The Oyez Project (accessed on March 31, 2011).

U.S. Department of State. "US Department of State Services Dual Nationality" (accessed on April 8, 2011).

U.S. Immigration Support. "US Dual Citizenship." 2010 (accessed on April 8, 2011).